Power of advertising.The disjointed unfocussed direction of android. Google just doesn't seem to have handled it best it could have.Microsoft coming late to the game. Win 8 pads could be huge. I am holding out till they are on the market before i commit.

There are alot of claims about scientists accepting ID, but when we look at their credentials they tend to be involved in chemical engineering or computer science etc. Very few seem to have any experience in biological sciences.

I'm on a hunt for data about this, but so far I've had no luck. Can anyone here point me to a good source?

As a biochemist Behe might be marginal. Sternberg (taxonomist ?) and Gauger (zoologist) seem to be the main ones with a claim to be biological scientists. Wells doesn't seem to have done any post-doctoral work. so I wouldn't count him.

In that case I don't think you'll see anything more than the claim that there are lots of them but that they are keeping quite for fear of reprisals (although any such fear would have more to do with ID scaremongering than reality).

Quite how we can tell you about covert IDists I'm not sure. For a broader swathe there is always the DI's Scientific Dissent document list, though as you say the relevance of the scientists is variable.

George Lolos, a physics professor at the University of Regina, said it all has to do with static electricity, the buildup of electric charge on the surface of objects. For example, if somebody was doing work on a carpet and then touched the broom, static electricity would circulate between the bristles and make the broom stand straight up.